General Interest > Tacitus' Realm
The Muslim Hijacking of Ground Zero
ajax13:
--- Quote from: "none-ya" ---
--- Quote ---Anne Bonney wrote
" Are we to judge all muslims by the actions of those on 9/11?"
--- End quote ---
No. Just the ones who get on planes in the U.S.
And I don't trust any religious fanatics. I don't care what "brand".Especially christians.
--- End quote ---
What a funny thing, this nomenclature. Having never heard from the horse's mouth, so to speak, just how the hijackers of September 2001 referred to themselves, it falls to the observer to name the phenomenon. The most prominent of the fellows featured in news of the events was Mohammed Atta. Atta seems to have had a fondness for narcotics, liquor and women of questionable virtue. This seems very much at odds with the image of a fundamenalist follower of Islam. I for one would not use the term Fundamentalist Muslim to refer to such an individual. I tend more towards the school of "walks like a duck", so to speak. Rather than their relationship to a desert-dwelling religious leader who has been dead for a millenium or so, I am more inclinced to look at the relationship that the men in question had with people like Wally Hilliard, and the folks who retain Mr. Hilliard's services, where etymology is concerned.
Antigen:
I still maintain that it's theocracy, not the brand of religion, that's dangerous. Anne cites the abortion clinic bombers as a pretty good recent example of dangerous x-tians. None-ya shows some clips of militant x-tian brainwashing.
Conversely, a long while back, GregFl showed some clips of Islamic Madrasah in the context of how similar they are to a day in Group.
The primary difference between a fundamentalist radical who bombs abortion clinics and fundamentalist radicals who blow themselves up in a holy war is that the x-tian fundamentalists, for the time being anyway, generally are indicted, tried and convicted of their crimes. That's because, so far, we haven't let them completely take over government again.
IslamIsViolent:
--- Quote from: "Antigen" ---I still maintain that it's theocracy, not the brand of religion, that's dangerous. Anne cites the abortion clinic bombers as a pretty good recent example of dangerous x-tians. None-ya shows some clips of militant x-tian brainwashing.
--- End quote ---
Right, Antigen. but the difference is that Christianity itself does not permit or dictate violence. Strictly speaking it's a pacifist religion where one is supposed to turn the other cheek, even if attacked first. Islam, on the other hand, commands violence and those who commit violence in Islam's name are indeed doing what the Qur'an and Hadiths command. It's relatively easy to convince a violent Christian that they are not following the will of god by pointing to the Bible. On the other hand it's impossible to do the same with Islam.
ajax13:
Sockpuppet, while there is nothing new under the sun, and imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I find your personification of the abstract series of ideas known as Islam, to be a little too deriviative. Stony trotted out that reism in a different thread, and I admire his dedication to his comedic art, but I'm not seeing anything new in your routine. The underlying theme of Stony's comedy, the fact that neither Islam nor Christianity nor any other abstract that exists only as a series of ideas can permit or dictate or command anything is well-emphasized in his material. I admire your willingness to take a chance by forcing the element of absurdity in the wholly preposterous claim about the ease of dissuading a violent Christian. It's over the top, but was succinct and I did find it to be funny.
......:
[attachment=0:2pkojkbg]TERRORIST.jpg[/attachment:2pkojkbg]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version